D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[plisnithus8]

The question I would ask myself about such a mechanic is "Why do I want to do this?" Is it because it plays into the theme of my campaign, which has something to do with the Gods of Fate manipulating the PCs into doing their will?

Or is it because my players hit dead ends a lot or are extremely risk averse and it hurts the pacing of the game? Is it because I'm not giving my players enough information to make reasonably informed choices? Are my plots too convoluted or my descriptions too vague?

Once you boil this down, you may be able to see an underlying problem that is better addressed than implementing this in the game. (Or not, as the case may be.)

It seems a little like several of you are saying that if the players aren't picking up on clues, then the DM is doing a bad job. To me this gets back to the idea that players' skills are different than characters' skills. I don't ask David to try to pick up a 200 point weight and throw it across the room in order to see if his barbarian is successful. Puzzles can be fun for the players to think through, but I also think Intelligence checks can play a part too. Just because players don't have intuition, maybe their characters should have an opportunity to use Wisdom for that gut check. It's not about gods or someone controlling the characters; it's about the characters having a skill beyond the player's abilities.

It also seems that assumptions are being made that this is to railroad players -- it's meant to be a general question, but specifically the current campaign actually is a very sandboxy where an intuition check might help them make a decision when they can't choose between a multitude of options.

 

[iserith]

It seems a little like several of you are saying that if the players aren't picking up on clues, then the DM is doing a bad job. To me this gets back to the idea that players' skills are different than characters' skills. I don't ask David to try to pick up a 200 point weight and throw it across the room in order to see if his barbarian is successful. Puzzles can be fun for the players to think through, but I also think Intelligence checks can play a part too. Just because players don't have intuition, maybe their characters should have an opportunity to use Wisdom for that gut check. It's not about gods or someone controlling the characters; it's about the characters having a skill beyond the player's abilities.

It also seems that assumptions are being made that this is to railroad players -- it's meant to be a general question, but specifically the current campaign actually is a very sandboxy where an intuition check might help them make a decision when they can't choose between a multitude of options.

These are things to be aware of and for the DM to consider before implementing any new approach. They are not statements of what must be true at a given game. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. But critically examining one's own approach is a good process in my view.

 

[Umbran]

It seems a little like several of you are saying that if the players aren't picking up on clues, then the DM is doing a bad job.

There are three elements, really:

1) Find the information
2) Understand what the information means
3) Make a decision based upon that information.

In D&D, the first is typically covered by Perception, Insight, and Investigation, and maybe other skills in some situations. If they aren't finding the information, then as a GM you realize that you are giving them too few opportunities, or you are making it too difficult to do so. If you don't want hem to miss information, don't leave it much to chance.

The second is the realm of player logic, with a backup of skill checks, and Intelligence or Widsom checks for people with a relevant background, or the like. If the player are failing here, again, maybe your DCs are too high, or you are creating plots in which the characters are not competent. That, again, is about the GM setting the difficulties appropriately, and, if you don't want them to miss the logic, don't leave it to chance.

The third is the tricky one. If the players are going down a rathole of dicsussion and are unable to make a decision, that is probably because they need more information, so see 1 and 2. If they are there because they plain old suffer from option paralysis, they don't need you to nudge them. They just need a coin to flip.

 

[ad_hoc]

We already have enough mechanics that tell players what to do.

Sometimes the characters should be taken unawares. There should be a danger of getting in over their heads. Otherwise where is the tension?

 

[ad_hoc]

It seems a little like several of you are saying that if the players aren't picking up on clues, then the DM is doing a bad job. To me this gets back to the idea that players' skills are different than characters' skills. I don't ask David to try to pick up a 200 point weight and throw it across the room in order to see if his barbarian is successful. Puzzles can be fun for the players to think through, but I also think Intelligence checks can play a part too. Just because players don't have intuition, maybe their characters should have an opportunity to use Wisdom for that gut check. It's not about gods or someone controlling the characters; it's about the characters having a skill beyond the player's abilities.

It also seems that assumptions are being made that this is to railroad players -- it's meant to be a general question, but specifically the current campaign actually is a very sandboxy where an intuition check might help them make a decision when they can't choose between a multitude of options.

Here is something I've saved that explains different approaches to the game. Different editions have leaned into them differently.

What you're describing is very 3e.

In the beginning, there was the idea of "skilled play." If you look back, you see that while players inhabited a role (proto-roleplaying), players were also assumed to have some skill at the game itself. That is why early modules featured puzzles and traps and riddles and so on that were meant to be solved by the players, not the PCs. And the different abilities of monsters were known (or not) by the players, not the PCs. This was so well-known that one of the earliest Dragon Magazines (before the Monster Manual!) mocks the problem and has a way for DMs to create random monsters!!!

Then we can discuss the concept of "role playing." People that were more interested in role playing became focused on the divide between the player and the PC. The player might know that a troll could be stopped by fire (having encountered one in the last campaign), but the PC might not. So the player would have to determine if the PC had that knowledge- did their history, background, intelligence, and so on, mean that they would know this? Would a noble-born Cleric know it? How about a peasant fighter recently released from the army?

Finally, there is the concept of "dice play." With the advent of later parts of 2e, and especially 3e on, their was an increased emphasis on the use of dice to resolve non-combat situations.** Here, instead of looking solely at skilled play (what the player knew) or the role play (what the PC knew), the player would determine if the PC knew that information the same way that the player would determine if the PC hit an opponent; by rolling. This made it worthwhile to invest in an applicable skill to know, um, stuff.

In 5e 'skills' aren't used.

Instead the player describes what the character is doing and the DM determines whether they succeed, fail, or if the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain the DM will call for an ability check and might allow for proficiency to be added to it if the character is proficient in a particular skill.

The end result is that 5e ends up taking an in-between approach which will differ from table to table.

Lovers of 3e can certainly play it like that if they want to.

Personally, I am not a fan of that way of playing.

If a player says "I make an investigation check" I would say, wait, no, what is the character actually doing?

If a player says "I search the room" then I might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. Or maybe they just succeed or fail at finding anything special that is hidden.

If a player says "I move the painting to look behind it" then they plainly see the hidden alcove with a treasure chest in it.

 

[Quickleaf]

What would be the pros/cons of implementing Intuition in the game?
I’d like PCs to have a 6th sense to guide them, a way as a DM to give them gut instincts, flashes of warnings?
View attachment 118542
I can't decide if it would be a new ability or skill (if so, attached to Wisdom?).
Or should be like a Plot Point type of mechanic, each player getting one roll a session so it's not overused?

Please let me know if/how it has been done in previous editions or other rpgs.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.

You're using Inspiration in your games already? You could just make sure you're giving it out regularly, and add a homebrewed use for Inspiration – Intuitive Guidance, or some such. I did that while my players delved a death trap dungeon, and though I called it Get A Clue, it was fairly similar. The key thing was that it was a player activated resource, so I still needed to do all the usual foreshadowing, subtle clues, and hint dropping that a DM usually needs to do.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't ask David to try to pick up a 200 point weight and throw it across the room in order to see if his barbarian is successful.

You mean I've been slapping two phone books together for an hour for nothing?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Or is it because my players hit dead ends a lot or are extremely risk averse and it hurts the pacing of the game? Is it because I'm not giving my players enough information to make reasonably informed choices? Are my plots too convoluted or my descriptions too vague?

Once you boil this down, you may be able to see an underlying problem that is better addressed than implementing this in the game. (Or not, as the case may be.)

In my experience, the player who wanted this tended to trust his gut, and wanted his character to reflect this about him. YMMV.

 

[Todd Roybark]

While there is alot of good advice here, it is rather dour.
These type of checks can also be about the players having system mastery, or having plain, old, fun.

The player of a Bard in a campaign , had an epiphany regarding how Jack of All Trades and 5e ability checks were different than 3e skills, and how ‘being untrained in a skill’ was different now from 3e.

The player realized she could do something like I described before, skinned it as asking the Muses for inspiration, and in this homebrew the Gods are very active in the lives of Mortals, did a real world impromptu performance....and fun was had.

Clever play, does not necessarily indicate a problem, Houston.

Duct taping together a solution with skills is a tradition going back to 1e Wilderness Survival, and Mcgyver.

 

[iserith]

In my experience, the player who wanted this tended to trust his gut, and wanted his character to reflect this about him. YMMV.

What do you mean?